> Am I correct in thinking that in the case of a hidden master and a chain
> of slaves, that the first publicly acessable slave would do the signing
> and that in any case only one instance of bind should do the signing?
The signer doesn't even have to be publicly accessible if you don't want it
t
Thomas Schulz wrote:
>
> Am I correct in thinking that in the case of a hidden master and a chain
> of slaves, that the first publicly acessable slave would do the signing
> and that in any case only one instance of bind should do the signing?
It is better if the hidden master does the signing, s
On Dec 12 2013, Thomas Schulz wrote:
Sorry for the bad advice.
Am I correct in thinking that in the case of a hidden master and a chain
of slaves, that the first publicly acessable slave would do the signing
and that in any case only one instance of bind should do the signing?
It would be str
On 12/11/2013 08:42 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <52a8e44a.1070...@brandeis.edu>, John Miller writes:
Hello folks,
I'm getting ready to revamp our dynamic DNS setup here on campus, and am
curious: what is everyone doing for update forwarding? Have you seen
certain clients that will send
Sorry for the bad advice.
Am I correct in thinking that in the case of a hidden master and a chain
of slaves, that the first publicly acessable slave would do the signing
and that in any case only one instance of bind should do the signing?
Tom Schulz
Applied Dynamics Intl.
sch...@adi.com
___
On 11.12.2013 21:09, Mark Andrews wrote:
For normal slave zones (unsigned) it works fine. Is this a known bug?
>Where can I open a bug report? Any workarounds?
You can report bugs tobind9-b...@isc.org. That being said this one is
trivial.
Thanks, works fine.
regards
Klaus
_
6 matches
Mail list logo
